Long-distance anaphora: an overview

Reuland, Eric; Köster, Jan

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511627835.002

Cited by 43 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A few languages, varying from Frisian (Everaert , Reuland & Reinhart ) and Old English (for instance Van Gelderen ) to Khanty (Nikolaeva , , Volkova , Volkova & Reuland ) and Zhuang (Schadler , this issue) even allow local binding of 3 rd person pronominals. Furthermore, many languages have expressions that are in some sense in between anaphors and pronominals, such as long‐distance anaphors , elements that must be bound and cannot be used deictically, hence qualify as anaphors, but yet allow an antecedent far beyond the domain defined in (1) (see the various contributions in Reuland & Koster and Cole, Huang & Hermon ). In fact, some languages allow such an element without a linguistic antecedent whatsoever, such as Icelandic sig in its logophoric use (see, for instance Thráinsson ).…”

Section: Towards a Comprehensive Theory Of Bindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

Reuland

2017

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do so many languages employ special means to express reflexive predicates, and why can what languages do be so diverse, although the notion of a reflexive predicate appears to be so simple? What happens in languages that don't seem to do anything special? The contributions in this special issue all focus on the various ways in which natural languages express reflexivity, and how the challenges their diversity poses can be addressed. In this contribution I present and further develop my answers to these questions, showing that except for a definition of binding no principles specific to binding need to be assumed. Sections 3-7 provide an overview of issues against which the results of current binding research are to be interpreted. I briefly address the role of phases in the theory of binding and argue that phases are relevant only indirectly namely in so far as the operations involved in the encoding of binding dependencies are themselves sensitive to phase-hood. I also relate my account to current debates about the relation between syntax and morphology (as in Distributed Morphology), showing that a too loose connection between syntax and morphology leads to severe methodological problems. Section 8, presents an explicit derivation of the need for reflexivity to be licensed, addressing questions that have been raised since that idea was first presented. Section 9 provides a summary of the approach.

show abstract

Section: Towards a Comprehensive Theory Of Bindingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

Reuland

2017

Studia Linguistica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that nonlocal binding of SE anaphors (what Reuland & Koster [1991] call “medium distance binding”) is permissible only in defective clauses such as ECM clauses and infinitival clauses, as shown in (13) 9 . For example, long‐distance binding into an indicative clause is impossible, as shown by the Icelandic example in (14).…”

Section: Proposal: Null Se Anaphormentioning

confidence: 99%

“… It has been argued that sig in such examples is used logophorically, not anaphorically. That is, the use of sig in subjunctive clauses is governed by discourse factors rather than syntactic principles (Reuland 2001b, Reuland & Koster 1991, Reuland & Everaert 2001). Thus, logophoric SE may have a non‐c‐commanding antecedent and may not be “bound” by a c‐commanding NP unless it represents the center of discourse (Thrainsson 1976, 1990; Maling 1984; Reuland & Everaert 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

PRO Versus Null SE: Case, Tense, and Empty Categories in Tongan

Otsuka¹

2011

Syntax

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper examines the null arguments occurring in adverbial ‘o‐clauses in Tongan, whose characteristics are distinct from other kinds of empty categories attested in the language. I argue (a) that the empty category in question should be understood as a phonetically null SE anaphor and (b) that local‐ and medium‐distance binding of SE anaphors must be licensed by Agree with the functional category that assigns the primary case (i.e., T in accusative languages and v in ergative languages). The study also observes that ‘o‐clauses are similar to telic to‐clauses in English as well as control subjunctives in Balkan languages in that they contain anaphoric tense, and suggests that some instances of what has been regarded as PRO in the literature might be better understood as an instance of a null SE.

show abstract

“…(5) Another property of the Norwegian long-distance anaphor is that the binding cannot cross a finite clause boundary. Reuland & Koster (1991) call this 'medium-distance binding'. This pattern resembles the TENSED-INFINITIVE ASYMMETRY (Yuan 1994) identified in research on L2 anaphoric binding.…”

Section: Norwegian Anaphors and Cross-linguistic Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological problems related to research on L2 Norwegian anaphors

Busterud¹

2010

Nord J Linguist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the methodological challenges involved in investigating anaphoric binding in Norwegian as a second language. Norwegian anaphors can be bound both locally and non-locally, and since anaphors vary cross-linguistically, it is interesting to explore whether and where L2 speakers of Norwegian allow such target-like local and nonlocal binding in their L2. Sentences with two possible antecedents might be ambiguous for L2 speakers, and the truth-value judgment task is generally considered to be the best method for eliciting knowledge of L2 speakers' intuitions of anaphoric binding in ambiguous sentences. In Norwegian, long-distance binding cannot cross a finite clause boundary, and the long-distance anaphor cannot be locally bound. Because of this, the truth-value judgment task is sometimes less adequate for testing all relevant binding structures in Norwegian. Dialectal variations in Norwegian pose additional challenges for the study of the acquisition of anaphors in an L2. This paper discusses the implications of these methodological challenges.

show abstract

Long-distance anaphora: an overview

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

Why is Reflexivity so Special? Understanding the World of Reflexives

PRO Versus Null SE: Case, Tense, and Empty Categories in Tongan

Methodological problems related to research on L2 Norwegian anaphors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About